Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Your information is moot. Amongst all living things the DNA is shared to an extent, sometimes more than others. There are even anomalies in which organisms have nearly the same DNA makeup as humans yet are not humans and by evolution standards, are not even related to us. We share 35% of our DNA with bananas, does that make us 35% banana? No. It isn't hard to say that we share DNA with everything considering everything is made up of the same DNA. The only thing this idea assumes is that it had the same starting point, one single unifying DNA strand. Does it confirm evolution? No. It confirms creation, however it is that it happened.

Fossil evidence is once again as I stated - assumptions based on similarities. Humanity sees similar skeletal structure and jump to the assumption that these fossils MUST have been related and evolved from one another in some way. This is a rather large jump and an assumptions based solely on the idea that one believes in evolution to begin with to even consider such a possibility. There is no way to prove that an extinct species evolved from another one - period. All belief of such is faith in a theory.

The other "experiments" have all been done using single celled organisms. I feel like a broken record having to repeat this over and over but I will say it again. Never has an experiment been carried out to show evolution on a multi-celled organism. The assumption that it is possible stems from the idea that "since single selled organisms could do it, why can't larger organisms?". There is no fact behind such statement, just an assumption that has been made unfalsifiable by evolutionary standards.

Labs have been unable to reproduce evolution on a larger scale so they some up with the grand doctrine that "it takes billions of years", "it will happen eventually", and "it takes very specific circumstances."


The Earth was proven to rotate around the sun by observation. Every 365 days one cycle was completed. It was science that anyone could look at and observe and understand. Once we got into space and we saw how the planets moved, all such information was confirmed. Evolution has been made, much like any other religion, to be unconfirmable. They have devised excuses for it not occurring and they have excuses as to why it might never occur in our presence - yet somehow something with so many excuses is believed to be a "fact".

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


Does ConspiracyNutJob have two names well since you have jumped in please show me fossil proof as far back as possible of a skeleton 100% IDENTICAL to a modern man, if we or animals have NOT evolved we should find remains in the very very very distant past to prove it.

Experiments with bacteria are over 10's of thousands of generations (as they multiply quicker than us) as a human generation is considered as 20-25 years that's a very long time NOW go prove what you claim an let nutjob answer!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

So you have no comments on this

You keep going on about evolution requires faith , there is proof of evolution through DNA, fossil evidence and other experiments.

After all we all share a very high percentage of our DNA with the great apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys and a lower percentage with all other living creatures would you care to explain that.

So can you make a comment other than faith about the above or is that a struggle for you

Sharing a close % of DNA with animals is not proof of evolution.

Fossils are not evidence of evolution. Your interpretation of the fossil record has led you to believe in evolution, it is a belief that requires faith (it is not science). Until the theory is proven using the scientific method it is merely a theory and a very poor one at that.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by TheNewRevolution

 

Does ConspiracyNutJob have two names

well since you have jumped in please show me fossil proof as far back as possible of a skeleton 100% IDENTICAL to a modern man, if we or animals have NOT evolved we should find remains in the very very very distant past to prove it.

Experiments with bacteria are over 10's of thousands of generations (as they multiply quicker than us) as a human generation is considered as 20-25 years that's a very long time NOW go prove what you claim an let nutjob answer!!!

The fossil record is dated using the age of the rock, the rock is dated using the age of the fossils. Circular reasoning is one of the main reasons that the whole theory of evolution is fantasy. I have already requested that people do a word search for 'geological column', 'fossile record', & 'circular reasoning'. So far nobody has responded to this request with their findings.

The bones that you suggest we investigate are merely thousands of years old, not millions as you are led to believe. I will freely admit that I believe this due to my faith in God and the bible, it is in no way scientific because I cannot prove it using the scientific method. When you use the scientific method to prove that the fossils are millions of years old then I will start to pay attention.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Quite the argument you have there.

You are once against using the assumption that man was even created by evolution to bolster your evolution argument even further. Perhaps the reason there are no modern man skeletons past a certain time was because modern man didn't exist, but obviously you already knew this.

However, being predominated swayed by evolution you assume that modern man didn't exist because he had not yet "evolved" yet. You dismiss every other possible theory by using the creation of man in a circular argument with itself by stating the simple assumption "since man did not exist at this time, he must have evolved later" and you are using that as some kind of "proof" of evolution.

As I said before I am an agnostic. I believe in the possibility of intelligent design or scientific design in many different forms. Evolution could be real and it could be the truth, but the argument you just provided does nothing back falls back upon itself time and time again.

I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.

Faith

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Nope faith isn't needed for science.

I follow a bit of archeology and try to keep up with new discoveries. One thing that has surfaced about early man is that most groups interbred with Neanderthals which forever changed the characteristics of man. Early man shared more traits with modern Asians than any other modern man. Asians carry far less genetic markers from Neanderthal than any other groups on earth.

It would make sense then that the earliest true human religions would be from Asian origins.

Everyone should really look it up for themselves.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.




Nope faith isn't needed for science.

The fossil record is real alright but it does not prove evolution.

Correct on the second part.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
The fossil record is dated using the age of the rock, the rock is dated using the age of the fossils. Circular reasoning...

While that may have been true 100 years ago, nowdays radiometric dating methods are used.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
So far nobody has responded to this request with their findings.

Probably because your assertion is a lie.
You dont believe it works, scientists dont use the method you describe... so whats to discuss?


---

Edit - And before you reply, consider the following...

If your rebuttal is that radiometric dating methods are flawed, you therefore admit that you KNEW the methods existed, and deliberatly lied to your audience when you posted your dating method scenario.

Your only way out, to not be called a liar, is to say you were ignorant that radiometric dating methods exist.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
The fossil record is dated using the age of the rock, the rock is dated using the age of the fossils. Circular reasoning...

While that may have been true 100 years ago, nowdays radiometric dating methods are used.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
So far nobody has responded to this request with their findings.

Probably because your assertion is a lie.
You dont believe it works, scientists dont use the method you describe... so whats to discuss?

---

Edit - And before you reply, consider the following...

If your rebuttal is that radiometric dating methods are flawed, you therefore admit that you KNEW the methods existed, and deliberatly lied to your audience when you posted your dating method scenario.

Your only way out, to not be called a liar, is to say you were ignorant that radiometric dating methods exist.

edit on 23-3-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

The radiometric methods are no good. It is all still based on the false assumption that the rock is billions of years old.

The rock is dated by the fossils and the fossils are dated by the rock, it is circular reasoning.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.




Nope faith isn't needed for science.

The fossil record is real alright but it does not prove evolution.

Correct on the second part.

I beg to differ. We have transitional fossils. To give some examples: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus and Aetiocetus. Look at this in succession and guess what? It's the evolution of the whale. I believe that's called proof.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.




Nope faith isn't needed for science.

The fossil record is real alright but it does not prove evolution.

Correct on the second part.

I beg to differ. We have transitional fossils. To give some examples: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus and Aetiocetus. Look at this in succession and guess what? It's the evolution of the whale. I believe that's called proof.

You are free to interpret the data in a way that supports your belief, just don't call it science.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.




Nope faith isn't needed for science.

The fossil record is real alright but it does not prove evolution.

Correct on the second part.

I beg to differ. We have transitional fossils. To give some examples: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus and Aetiocetus. Look at this in succession and guess what? It's the evolution of the whale. I believe that's called proof.

You are free to interpret the data in a way that supports your belief, just don't call it science.

I fail to see your point. We can look at the fossils of all the above listed creatures and see - very clearly - the evolution of the whale. Thus destroying your case completely. And it is science, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Quite the argument you have there.

You are once against using the assumption that man was even created by evolution to bolster your evolution argument even further. Perhaps the reason there are no modern man skeletons past a certain time was because modern man didn't exist, but obviously you already knew this.

However, being predominated swayed by evolution you assume that modern man didn't exist because he had not yet "evolved" yet. You dismiss every other possible theory by using the creation of man in a circular argument with itself by stating the simple assumption "since man did not exist at this time, he must have evolved later" and you are using that as some kind of "proof" of evolution.

As I said before I am an agnostic. I believe in the possibility of intelligent design or scientific design in many different forms. Evolution could be real and it could be the truth, but the argument you just provided does nothing back falls back upon itself time and time again.

Well lets change it to every animal if nothing evolves we should have skeletons as evidence for all creatures.

Or do all creatures just suddenly appear

It's like the creationists that claim men and dinosaurs lived together don't see many human skeletons with dinosaurs skeletons do you

You have just said that evolution may be true, we have evidence to point to it so whats the problem

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I do not need faith to understand the fossil record nor do I need faith to see evolution is real.




Nope faith isn't needed for science.

The fossil record is real alright but it does not prove evolution.

Correct on the second part.

I beg to differ. We have transitional fossils. To give some examples: Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Artiocetus and Aetiocetus. Look at this in succession and guess what? It's the evolution of the whale. I believe that's called proof.

You are free to interpret the data in a way that supports your belief, just don't call it science.

I fail to see your point. We can look at the fossils of all the above listed creatures and see - very clearly - the evolution of the whale. Thus destroying your case completely. And it is science, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

Ummm.... No we don't.

We see a bunch of different fossils, that is all.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


You see the evolution of the whale because you already subscribe to evolution. To a person who doesn't have a predisposed opinion they see a bunch of skeletons, albeit similar in nature.

It takes an evolutionist to ASSUME that by looking at it that they are connected and derived from one another. If I used that assumption in everyday life it would not work out too well simply based upon looks.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Ummm.... No we don't.

We see a bunch of different fossils, that is all.

I despair, I really do. Do some research I beg of you.

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

You see the evolution of the whale because you already subscribe to evolution. To a person who doesn't have a predisposed opinion they see a bunch of skeletons, albeit similar in nature.

It takes an evolutionist to ASSUME that by looking at it that they are connected and derived from one another. If I used that assumption in everyday life it would not work out too well simply based upon looks.

No, I see whales, because that's what they are, albeit early ones. They are related to each other. The evidence is ridiculously clear.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Yes and all Asians are related to each other because they look similar.
A human penis must clearly be derived from various fruits and vegetables to to the distinct similarity in shape.

You honestly don't see how shallow and ignorant your "related to each other" evidence is? It consists of and limits itself at the very notion that they look like each other to try to say they derived from one another. At least in the case of human races and genetics we can actually see the relation of it playing out where as in these ancient species we have people like you that just assume it all plays out however the storybook in your mind would like it to.

There is NO scientific proof that states that because two animals share similar bone structures, looks, or even similar DNA, that they are related to one another. Why? Because EVERYTHING shares the same DNA and genetic makeup, it is simply the composition which creates what we see. In some grandiose spiritual way, yes, all things are related to one another by similar genetics, and all species can find similar traits in other species. Why? Because there are only so many combinations out of the billions to the billionth power of species before you find something that is just one gene off of something else, and just because you find it does not mean it came from something last in the line.

Ignorance. Have you seen these whales breed and convert themselves into new species? No. Has anyone? No. Can you prove that it happened? No. Yet you believe it. That, my friend, is called faith and that is what is required for anyone to believe in evolution because simply put and finalized, as it stands today with the information we have and all the information that we as humans THINK that we know - IT CAN NOT BE PROVEN AS THE ORIGIN OR THE DERIVATION OF ANY SPECIES WHATSOEVER.

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

You see the evolution of the whale because you already subscribe to evolution. To a person who doesn't have a predisposed opinion they see a bunch of skeletons, albeit similar in nature.

It takes an evolutionist to ASSUME that by looking at it that they are connected and derived from one another. If I used that assumption in everyday life it would not work out too well simply based upon looks.

Then WHY can't we find a modern whale skeleton with the others I will ask again do you think they and other creatures and us just pop into existence